We aren't sure of that. Maybe if he releases his tax reports, we can find that out. Until then, we should assume he's probably far below that in the millionaire range because of his tendency to exaggerate things.

Yeah, but the whole point is to PREVENT anyone from doing something "Flash like". We don't want programmable ads -- that's untrusted code. If you can't communicate your ad with a static image, a video, and a "click for more info" link, you need a better ad dept... if your product is so bad that the only way you can get people to buy it is with invasive advertising, maybe the world is better off without your doohickey.

Ok, that makes sense... but why do you need the arb clause instead of just going to small claims court or civil court? I understand wanting the arb clause, but mandating it when someone else doesn't want to give up their rights to court review is something that I generally oppose in other contexts, so I'm curious why it matters so much in your context.

At what point does arbitration enter into a situation like that? And why couldn't it be settled through the courts instead of mandating the arbitration clause?
I'm honestly curious how this would work.

Not a lawyer, but I was trained in First Amendment law as part of my degree.
The First Amendment does not apply to individuals or businesses limiting other individuals or businesses. First Amendment doesn't enter into this discussion. Contracts aren't speech. They're agreements between people, and the government does limit what types of things you can compel another person to do in a contract. Frequently, Congress has acted to limit asymetries of power... notice that this bill affects FORM CONTRACTS only... that means the ones that are created for mass signatures... if you want to have a personalized contract -- one where you sign and then a company rep personally countersigns -- then I think this doesn't apply. But for that last bit, you would need to check with a lawyer.

Breitbart was more widely *read*. Readership has no bearing on credibility. That's exactly the problem. You cannot derive whether they are a trustworthy site simply from the fact that many people trust them. Trustworthiness comes from having your statements vetted by other people -- you claim that X is true... can I independently demonstrate that X is true? If I cannot, your trustworthiness should decrease. The problem we are facing is that it instead sometimes *increases* because of the partisanship. Rather than say "Site Y claims X but no one else can validate X so Y must be wrong", we get people who say "Site Y claims X, no one else can validate X, so everyone else must be engaged in a coverup conspiracy" or some variation on that theme.

You have the choice to get in the car, same as today. If SDC is better than most humans --- and we're very close to that --- then most humans should be in an SDC. And the more SDCs there are, the fewer accidents because they all know how each other will react -- no sudden erratic changes of mind about lanes!